U.S.

Mail Address:
P.O. BOX 2575
EAST LANSING, MI 48826-6386
PHONE: (517) 484-8000
FAX: (517) 484-0041
FAX: (517) 484-0081
ALL OTHER SHIPPING:
2900 WEST ROAD, SUITE 400
EAST LANSING, MI 48823-6386
MICHAEL B. FARRELL

ROY H. HENLEY

KIRK C. HERALD

DAVID M. REVORE

KATHERINE WOLF BROADDUS

GORDON W. VAN WIEREN, JR.

ROBERT G. HUBER

MARGARET M. HACKETT

JENNIFER K. JOHNSTON

TIMOTHY T. GARDNER, JR.

BEVERLY J. BONNING

MICHAEL D. GRESENS

MATTHEW F. HISER

RYAN J. NICHOLSON

MARTHA J. MARCERO

CHRISTOPHER J. IAMARINO

KARI S. COSTANZA

BRANDON C. WALKER

LISA L. SWEM

RAYMOND M. DAVIS

ROBERT A. DIETZEL

FREDRIC G. HEIDEMANN

KEVIN S. HARTY (OF COUNSEL)

JEFFREY J. SOLES

MICHELE R. EADDY

ERIC D. DELAPORTE

DANIEL R. MARTIN

ROBERT J. ROBINSON (OF COUNSEL)

ERIC D. DELAPORTE
(517) 374-8829
edelaporte@thrunlaw.com

September 15, 2015

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

3375 W Burdickville Rd,
Maple City, MI 49664
Re:

Via e-mail

Executive Summary and Legal Analysis of the Recent Independent Investigation

Dear Members of the Board of Education:

On behalf of the Board of Education, the Board President requested that your attorneys, Thrun Law
Firm, P.C., prepare an executive summary of, and provide legal context to, the independent
investigation recently conducted by Rehmann Corporate Investigate Services ("Rehmann"). As you
are aware, Rehmann was engaged by the Board of Education to conduct an investigation into certain
financial transactions, personnel matters, time and attendance issues, and comportment with various
rules, regulations, and contractual obligations.1 The investigation focused on seven general categories:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Credit Card Use;

Payroll Practices;
Professional Qualifications;
Time and Attendance Issues, Including Compliance With Contractual Obligations;
Improper Disclosures
Use of Public Funds; and,
Hiring Practices.2

Contrary to allegations proffered by the former superintendent, at no time was the investigation caused by, or targeted toward,
the use of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act.
2

Interviewees also raised significant concerns regarding a perceived climate of intimidation and retaliation within Ms.
Groenings administration. The investigation did not, and will not, address the culture within Ms. Groenings administration
absent Board directive.

East Lansing Novi West Michigan

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 2

Rehmann's report, which is subject to the Michigan investigator-client privilege, has previously been
mailed to you, along the exhibits and evidence gathered by Rehmann during its investigation. This
correspondence draws conclusions from Rehmann's investigation, as well as additional information
gathered by Thrun Law Firm working in conjunction with District staff to confirm and/or clarify
information and questions raised by Rehmann's investigation.
After reviewing the information available to us, it is our conclusion that Rehmann Corporate
Investigative Services' uncovered apparent violations of the Michigan Constitution, state laws
(including the Revised School Code), District policies, and central office best practices, as well as
significant misuse of public funds. We note, however, that at the time of this correspondence, it is our
understanding that the Glen Lake Community Schools, under the leadership of interim Superintendent
Hartigan, and in conjunction with the Board of Education, has taken significant steps to address the
issues identified herein.
Purpose of the Investigation
As you are aware, the genesis of the investigation lay in a perceived lack of administrative transparency,
and a reticence (and sometimes outright refusal) to share unqualified information with the Board of
Education. Based upon the information available to us, it appears that over a protracted period of time
Board of Education Members, along with community members, have questioned administrative
practices (especially financial practices). It is also our understanding that board members felt
stonewalled when attempting to gain specific details related to student, personnel, financial, and
managerial practices. The desire to fully understand financial expenditures, management practices,
and proper compliance with state and federal laws, as well as seemingly inaccurate information
previously provided to board members, formed the basis of the request for an investigation.
We note that it is unusual for board members to be denied access to information necessary to perform
their duties. 3 The Glen Lake Community Schools is a "general powers" school district which, in
accordance with the Revised School Code, is governed by its school board. See, MCL 380.11a. The
Board is tasked with managing the affairs of the District. It is our conclusion, based upon the
information provided, that the failure to allow full access to District information interfered with the
Board's exercise of its statutory duties.
3

Blocking access to information is inimical to the intent of the Revised School Code, and significantly curtails the Board's ability
to exercise its statutory duties. By way of example, among other items, Section 1249 of the Revised School Code requires that
the Board evaluate its superintendent based upon student growth and assessment data, as well as administrator training and
proficiency in conducting evaluations (including a review of a random sampling of teacher evaluations). It is our understanding
that for a time, the District's former chief administrator denied or impeded Board Member access to student information and
teacher evaluations. Not only does denial interfere with the Board of Education's statutory duties, but we note that the former
chief executive's actions seem nonsensical, as most of the information, such as teacher evaluations, is subject to the Freedom of
Information Act, and available to the general public. See, Bradley v Saranac Comm Schs, 455 Mich 285 (1997).

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 3

Contrary to unfounded rumors which have proliferated since the investigation's inception, it is
important to note that Rehmann's investigation was not targeted toward any specific individuals.
Rather, District employees were interviewed, and their actions analyzed, based upon individual access
to information, use of District credit cards or control of District funds, managerial control over
personnel, or individual positions within the District and the influence the office holder exercised over
District operations. Also contrary to claims by a former District employee, we have found no evidence
to support accusations that the investigation was grounded in illegal animus toward a protected status
or use of family medical leave.
Executive Summary and Legal Analysis
As noted above, based upon the information available to us, it is our conclusion that Rehmann
Corporate Investigative Services' uncovered apparent violations of the Michigan Constitution, state
laws (including the Revised School Code), District policies, and central office best practices, as well
as significant misuse of public funds.
Credit Cards
Rehmann reviewed credit card statements over a multi-year period for all District credit cards,
including those issued to or used primarily by Superintendent Joan Groening, Elementary Principal
Kimberly Wright, and Secondary Principal Konrad Molter. 4 The investigation revealed that many
credit card purchases lacked sufficiently detailed receipts or secondary documentation regarding the
goods or services obtained, and the underlying business purpose for the purchases. We note that in the
case of Mr. Molter (who had only one purchase questioned) and Ms. Wright (who had eight purchases
questioned), both were able to provide proof of the appropriate underlying business purpose for the
purchases. Ms. Groening also had a number of purchases questioned.
Rehmann identified several Groening purchases which appeared inappropriate (including a purchase
of jeans that were later returned and credited to the District), but the investigation was unable to fully
verify the status of those purchases due to her resignation.5

We note that there exist Four (4) credit cards, one of which remains in the central office. Although others within the District
do utilize the District credit cards from time-to-time (such as food service), the administrators are the primary clientele.
5

For example, Ms. Groening purchases a book on the District's credit card which she indicated had been recommended by
the Board President. Questions remain regarding the book purchase because the Board President did not instruct Ms. Groening
to use District funds for the purchase, and we are unable to verify the underlying business purchase as her resignation
forestalled a secondary interview.

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 4

In our opinion, the lack of detail and supporting proof of appropriate underlying business purpose
violated Board Policy 3605. 6 There is a preponderance of evidence based on the independent
investigation, that the two building principals failed to submit to the superintendent, and that the
superintendent herself failed to provide, appropriate documentation for all of their respective credit
card purchases within 5 calendar days as required by Board Policy 3605; however, we must caution
that the policy violation may not have been intentional, but may have instead resulted from poor
implementation of Board Policy and deficient credit card oversight by the District's then chief
administrator.7 It is our opinion that Superintendent Groening should have requested that each building
principal provide her with the requisite documentation as required by Board Policy 3605. In addition,
Superintendent Groening should have provided the same documentation for all purchases that she made
using the school districts credit card.
Payroll Practices
Before and during the investigation, investigators were alerted to potentially improper payroll practices.
Rehmann audited payroll records related to five administrators:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Superintendent Joan Groening

Principal Konrad Molter
Assistant Principal/Technology Director Katri ONeill
Principal Kimberly Wright
Assistant Principal/Athletic Director Jennifer Johnston
The investigation also delved into payroll practices related to additional duty pay for teachers. Based
upon the information provided, it is our opinion that, except for the three exceptions detailed below;
the preponderance of evidence indicates that none of the individuals were paid improperly.
Assistant Principal/Technology Director Katri O'Neill8

Board Policy 3605 states that, "When a Board member or employee uses a District credit card, documentation shall be
provided to the Superintendent within 5 calendar days, detailing the goods or services purchased, the cost of such goods or
services, the date of purchase and the purpose for which such goods or services were purchased." Any purchases for a personal
or unapproved purpose would also violate the Michigan Constitution's prohibition against using public funds for private
purposes and would also violate state law. Such purchases could result in both civil and criminal penalties.
7

We observe that neither principal appeared to have intentionally violated Board Policy, and that each was readily able to
produce the necessary documentation. We are concerned that a school district led by a former Certified Public Accountant
would lack basic provisions for adhering to Board Policy regarding credit card use. We have recommended that the central
office implement a procedure to ensure future compliance with Board Policy and best practices, and it is our understanding
that the procedure has now been implemented by Interim Superintendent Hartigan and his central office staff.
8 It should be emphasized that Ms. O'Neill did not receive additional pay to which she was not entitled. The investigation
ultimately concluded that the discrepancy was due to the unauthorized, unilateral, and improper alteration of Ms. O'Neill's

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 5

During the investigation, Rehmann identified discrepancies in the payment of Ms. O'Neill's individual
contract. Most Glen Lake individual administrator contracts provide for a set work year, with the
ability for administrators to work up to 20 additional days during the summer subject to the approval
of the Superintendent. Administrators are paid at the administrators daily rate for the 20 additional
days worked, or portion thereof. The exception is the employment contract for Assistant Principal
ONeill, which does not contain such a provision (as her contract began as a technology contract rather
than a building administrator contract).
During the 2013-2014 school year Ms. O'Neill was scheduled to take an extended period of leave. Ms.
O'Neill's banked paid time off did not fully cover the leave period, which normally would have resulted
in the forfeiture of a portion of her salary. Rather than adjust Ms. O'Neill's salary (as would have been
proper), Ms. Groening directed that Ms. O'Neill receive full compensation with a promise that Ms.
O'Neill would work to make up the time during the 2014 summer.
Assistant Principal ONeills contract does not include specific authorization for her to work during
the summer subject to the approval of the Superintendent. Ms. O'Neill's contract is subject to alteration
only upon written agreement by the Board of Education. Superintendent Groening did not have
independent authority to permit Assistant Principal ONeill to work outside of her contractual year, or
to make up time during the summer after being paid during the school year.
In our opinion, there is a preponderance of evidence provided as part of the investigation, that
Superintendent Groening caused Assistant Principal ONeill to breach her employment contract, and
also altered the terms of her employment. Ms. Groening's actions are ultra vires (beyond legal
authority). Both Board Policy and Michigan law retain in the Board of Education the right to contract
with employees. Michigan law holds that the superintendent lacks the authority, apparent or otherwise,
to commit the District to enforceable employment agreements. Ms. O'Neill's contract allowed for
modification only with the express written consent of the Board of Education, which the Board did not
give.
Not only did Ms. Groening usurp the Board's authority, but by paying Ms. O'Neill during one school
year for work which would be performed, if at all, during a subsequent school year, Ms. Groening
could be viewed as having effectively lent Ms. O'Neill public funds for a private purpose in violation
of the Michigan Constitution.
We note that Rehmann was initially unable to verify Ms. O'Neill's summer work (or the summer work
of any administrator) due to the lack of documentation. We were able to locate witnesses to verify that
the work was performed; however, we recommend that the Board take some steps to ensure that
contract by Superintendent Joan Groening, not because of any actions by Ms. O'Neill, who did work the days necessary to
receive her salary.

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 6

building administrators document the additional days worked, including a general description of the
need for and the services performed during those additional days.
Superintendent Groening Personal Leave Days
During the course of the investigation, investigators became aware of alleged improper retirement
payments made on behalf of Ms. Groening. Ms. Groening's contract allows for the accrual of two
additional personal leave days per month to compensate Ms. Groening for time spent working on
weekends and late nights,9 and that at the end of the fiscal year, Ms. Groening may sell up to 24 unused
personal leave days at her daily rate.
While Superintendent Groening would be entitled to compensation for up to 24 unused personal leave
days per year, her employment contract provides that payment is to be made at the end of the fiscal
year, not during the fiscal year. Moreover, if Ms. Groening sells her unused personal leave days back
to the District, those days become ineligible for inclusion in her retirement calculation in accordance
with Section 4.06.00 of the Office of Retirement Services, Public School
Employees Retirement Systems Reporting Instruction Manual.
Although Ms. Groening, as a former CPA and school business official, should have been aware that
compensation gained from selling unused personal leave days back to the District was ineligible for
inclusion in her retirement calculation, she nevertheless attempted to include the salary generated by
the sale of unused personal days as reportable compensation to the Office of Retirement Services
("ORS"). This had a twofold effect: (1) it raised her future retirement income by allowing her to show
greater final average compensation; and, (2) it forced the Board to pay additional retirement payments
on behalf of Ms. Groening to ORS.
Ms. Groening's inappropriate inclusion of unused personal leave payments as compensation was
initially caught by ORS after the District's payroll clerk, Ms. Black, properly coded the payments as
unused personal leave payments. ORS directed that the payments should not be included as
compensation eligible for inclusion in Ms. Groening's retirement calculations. 10 Ms. Groening then
9

As noted later in this correspondence, significant questions exist as to the extent of the weekend and late night work, and we
recommend that the Board eliminate such provisions in future contracts. In support of our recommendation we observe that
a school district's superintendent is an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and, as a salaried employee, is
expected to work additional hours as part of her base compensation.
10

Ms. Groening has asserted that the intent of the unused personal leave day buyback within her contract was to provide
additional base compensation, and thus, she did nothing wrong by having it coded as reportable compensation. Counsel notes
that even if the Board accepts that there existed confusion regarding the eligibility status of the unused personal leave days,
when ORS rejected the inclusion of the personal leave day buyback in Ms. Groening's retirement calculation, the appropriate
response would have been to approach the Board to seek a contract modification so that the payments were included in her
base compensation, rather than as unused personal leave. By acting unilaterally, she violated the Michigan Public School
Employees Retirement Act, breached her contract, and expended public funds for an inappropriate personal purpose.

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 7

directed Ms. Black to resubmit the calculation to ORS as normal compensation so Ms. Groening would
receive credit towards her retirement for the unused personal days. Ms. Groening then directed her
staff that she receive one additional day of pay for unused personal days during each bi-weekly pay
cycle for 24 of the 26 paychecks. Essentially, Ms. Groening directed that she receive 11 days of pay
during each paycheck cycle where she would normally receive credit for 10 days worked.
Ms. Groening's actions resulted in payments of approximately Forty Seven Thousand Dollars
($47,000),11 being included inappropriately in Ms. Groening's retirement calculations, which would
have resulted in a loss to the retirement system benefiting Ms. Groening had it not been caught by the
Board's investigation. More troubling, the inappropriate inclusion of Forty Seven Thousand Dollars
($47,000) as reportable compensation caused the Board to pay an additional and unneeded retirement
payment on behalf of Ms. Groening of almost Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000).
In our opinion, there is a preponderance of evidence that Superintendent Groening directed her
subordinate staff to pay out the 24 personal leave days with her regular bi-weekly payroll checks, rather
than as a lump sum at the end of the year, in violation of Section 5 of her Contract of Employment.
Further, by reporting the income along with her regular bi-weekly pay, it appears that Superintendent
Groening violated Section 4.06.02 of the RIM and portions of the Public School Employees Retirement
Act. Lastly, it appears that in doing so Ms. Groening caused the Board to pay retirement payments
above its allotted amount, resulting in the loss of approximately Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000)
of District funds.
We recommend that the District work with the Office of Retirement Services to ensure that any
discrepancies in retirement reporting and payments be resolved. We further recommend that the
District follow the RIM in the future.12
As a final note regarding Ms. Groening's use of paid time off, Ms. Groening's contract requires her to
notify the Board President and/or Board when she utilizes paid time off. Based upon the information
provided us through the investigation, it appears that Ms. Groening intentionally breached her contract.
It is our opinion that there is a preponderance of evidence that Superintendent Groening did not seek
or obtain prior approval from Board President Seymour and/or the Board for the vast majority of her
leave time as required by her employment contract.

11

12

This amount includes some stipend payments which were also inappropriately included in her retirement reporting.

It is our understanding that Ms. Black, with Mr. Hartigan's approval, has already taken significant action to resolve any
outstanding issues, to reverse the previous administration's directives, and to ensure compliance with the Public Employees
Retirement Act and ORS rules.

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 8

Additional Duty Pay for Teachers

During the investigation, questions arose regarding extra duty compensation received by teachers. A
number of teachers received additional compensation during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years
(13 employees received additional compensation in the total aggregate amount of $16,142.50 in the
2013-14 school year, and 43 employees received additional compensation in the total aggregate amount
of $28,647.50 in the 2014-15 school year).
In reviewing the records, we note that most of the additional compensation was paid at the hourly rates
of $20.00 and $35.00. The pay rate descriptions were for Instructional Teacher Leader at
$35.00/hour, Tech Curr/Teacher Leader at both $35.00 and $20.00/hour, and Marzano Goals
& Scales at $20.00/hour.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Glen Lake Federation of Teachers (CBA) has two
provisions authorizing additional pay at the rates of $20 per hour and $35 per hour. First, Section 2.8
A.4 of the CBA provides that staff member who attend meetings, conference, work sessions, or other
programs at the request of the Board or the Boards agents (e.g., the Superintendent) during noncontractual days will be compensated at the rate of $20 per hour for the actual days of the meeting,
conference, or other program including the length of the session and travel time. Some of the hours
reported may have fallen under this section of the CBA, and therefore been permitted. Second, Section
5.7 of the CBA pertains to Extra-Curricular Duties of teachers, including extra duty assignments and
additional compensation for performing them. There are two extra duty assignments listed that are paid
at the rate of $35.00 per hour: after school tutoring and summer school teachers. Some of the hours
reported may have fallen under Section 5.7 I or K of the CBA, and therefore been permitted.
There were, however, two outliers where an individual teacher was paid at a rate different than $35.00
or $20.00 per hour. One individual was paid $21.30/hour for 40.50 hours with the description Tech
Curr/Teacher Leader even though this same individual was also paid $35.00/hour for 12.50 hours
under the same description. A second individual was paid $24.29/hour for 7 hours with the description
Tech Curr/Teacher Leader. As noted above, the pay rate for that Tech Curr/Teacher Leader was
reported as both $35.00 and $20.00/hour for all others receiving that additional pay.
We could discern no contractual basis for why these two outliers were paid at a different hourly rate.
We also observe that we are unable to corroborate whether any of the additional work was actually
performed due to the lack of a functioning verification system tied to the $20 and $35 payments. 13
13

Normally teacher timecards for additional pay would be verified and approved by the building principals; however, during the
summer the building principals do not work unless employed on a special project for the 20 additional days.
Thus, not all of the work was verified. It is our understanding that under Mr. Hartigan's oversight, Ms. Black and Ms. Balhorn
have addressed this issue.

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 9

Assuming that the work was performed in accordance with the contract, it is our opinion that these two
individuals were paid for additional work at an amount that varied from, and potentially violated, the
Collective Bargaining Agreement.14
Professional Qualifications
The independent investigation opined that three administrators (Principal Wright, Assistant Principal
Johnston, and IT Director/Assistant Principal ONeill) may have worked for a period of time without
the required administrators certification. In addition, at the time the investigative report was submitted,
a concern was raised regarding Intervention Specialist, Amy Johnson-Velis, who was believed to be
performing duties as a school counselor without proper certification under Ms. Groening's
administration.
The Administrators
Section 1246 of the Revised School Code generally requires certain administrators to complete
continuing education requirements and to possess a valid Michigan Administrators Certificate or be
enrolled in a program to obtain a valid Certificate within six months of assuming their duties with a
graduation date within three years. Alternatively, an administrator may be grandfathered under the law
and maintain certain continuing education requirements. This requirement applies to persons employed
as a superintendent, principal, assistant principal, or other person whose primary responsibility is
administering instructional programs or as a chief business official. (Emphasis added). While the
Board is ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with Section 1246 of the Revised School
Code, the Board has delegated certain responsibilities to the Superintendent pursuant to Board Policy
2400: Administrative Personnel (Central Office and Building Level). This includes the Superintendent
identifying and recommending the appointment of qualified individuals to fill vacant administrative
positions.
Upon review of documentation provided by Principal Wright, we have confirmed that she has met the
continuing education requirements set forth in Section 1246 of the Revised School Code, which is an
alternative to the administrators certificate. Ms. Wright is grandfathered under the law and has
maintained the appropriate continuing education credits.

14

Counsel observes that despite being run by a superintendent who was a Certified Public Accountant and former business
manager, the District has struggled to properly account for payments made to employees, verify whether work was properly
performed outside the traditional school year, properly comply with its contractual obligations, and appropriately use public
funds. We note that we have observed the business office take immediate steps to address these deficiencies and to reverse
directives and procedures put in place by the previous administration. The business office is to be commended for their
actions; nevertheless, we would recommend that the Board and Superintendent give greater thought to improving the
processes, procedures, and safeguards in order to ensure that public funds are not abused.

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 10

It was announced in July of 2013 that Ms. ONeill would be assigned the additional responsibilities of
assistant principal to begin in the Fall of 2013. We have reviewed a copy of Assistant Principal
ONeills School Administrator Certificate, which was issued on December 19, 2013, and therefore
can confirm that she obtained her certificate within six months of being assigned the duties of an
assistant principal. Ms. O'Neill is properly certificated.
It is our understanding that Jennifer Johnston has neither obtained the required School Administrator
Certificate, nor enrolled in a program to obtain such a certificate within six months of assuming the
duties of her position. It is our understanding that both Superintendent Groening and Principal Konrad
Molter were aware that Ms. Johnston did not have the required Administrator Certificate. It is our
further understanding that Jennifer Johnston was prepared to enter a program as required by law but
was told by Superintendent Groening that she did not need to be certificated to serve as an assistant
principal. Ms. Johnston relied upon Ms. Groening's declaration when fulfilling her duties without
certification.
During the independent investigation, Superintendent Groening seemed to rely on the concept that the
two assistant principals had split positions, where their primary duties did not involve administering
instructional programs, and thus had done nothing wrong in failing to ensure her administrators were
properly certificated to hold their positions. Having reviewed Section 1246 of the Revised School
Code, including reviewing documents which delineate the Legislatures intent in enacting Section 1246,
and having reviewed guidance from the Michigan Department of Education, it is our opinion that
Superintendent Groening has failed to properly cite the law, and therefore appears to have permitted at
least one administrator to continue to be employed in violation of Section 1246 of the Revised School
Code. Ms. Groening's purported inaccurate advice may have also caused Ms. Johnson to violate
Section 1809 of the Revised School Code, which carries potential criminal penalties.
We recommend that the Board not permit Jennifer Johnston to continue to be employed as an assistant
principal until such time as the District can seek guidance from the Michigan Department of Education
regarding her status. Ms. Johnston may be employed in other capacities within the school district,
including as an athletic director. It is our understanding that the District will work with Ms. Johnston
to resolve these issues, and as the Athletic Director she is an integral part of the administration.

Intervention Specialist / School Counselor

During the independent investigation, a concern was raised that Intervention Specialist Amy JohnsonVelis was performing school counseling functions without proper certification. This issue was
apparently brought up a few time over the past couple of years as well, but we were not asked to address
it until now.

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 11

Section 1233(2) of the Revised School Code prohibits the Board from allowing someone to serve in a
counseling role without proper certification or credentials. The Michigan Administrative Code defines
the role of a school counselor to include:

Provide individual and group counseling services to assist pupils.

Collaborate with staff in planning educational interventions, curriculum, behavioral
management plans, and teaching strategies.
Consult and collaborate with pupils, families, school personnel, and appropriate professionals
and agency personnel regarding behavioral and educational concerns.
Provide guidance to pupils utilizing technology, career development theory, educational
information, and occupational information.
Assess pupils by using assessment, statistics and research methodology, follow-up evaluations,
and measurement methods.
Assess school counseling programs using assessment, statistics and research methodology,
follow-up evaluations, and measurement methods.
Design, implement, and evaluate a guidance and counseling program focusing on the career,
academic, personal, social, emotional and developmental needs of all pupils using, but not
limited to, the following functions:
o
Advising.
o
Placement.
o
Planning.
o
Assessment.
o
Counseling.
o
Coordinating.
o
Instructing.
o
Referring.
o
Programming.

The MDE regulates the practice of school counseling and determines applicant eligibility for the three
different school counselor credentials in Michigan:

1. the preliminary employment authorization;

2. the School Counselor Endorsement on a teaching certificate; and
3. the School Counselor License for those without a teaching certificate.
In order to serve in the role of a school counselor, an individual must have a valid teaching certificate
with a school counseling endorsement (NT), a school counseling license (SCL), or a preliminary
employment authorization (PESC) from the MDE. School Counselors must pass the Michigan Test for

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 12

Teacher Certification (MTTC) Test # 51: Guidance Counselor, which is administered by the MDE. No
other credential allows an individual to serve in the role of a school counselor. It is our opinion that the
District cannot legally hire someone who does not have one of these credentials as a school counselor.
Regardless of the persons job title, it is a violation to employ an individual without one of these
credentials to serve in the role of a school counselor.
Based upon the information available to us, it does appear that Amy Johnson-Velis has been permitted
by Ms. Groening to serve in a counseling role without proper certification. Until Amy Johnson-Velis
obtains her degree and certification as a school counselor, she should not be permitted to serve in that
role, although she may continue to work as a non-counseling intervention specialist.
Time and Attendance
During the independent investigation numerous questions arose regarding Superintendent Groening's
time and attendance, and her accounting for paid time off, or lack thereof. Rehmann has summarized
this issue as follows.
There is a fair consensus among the GLCS office administration to indicate, most
especially during the last two years, her physical participation and attendance in the
office has declined considerably. This lack of presence is not only during her rightly
authorized and used FMLA or other leave, but most importantly while technically on
duty. Groening and others defend her location by noting much of her work can be
conducted at home or through remote access. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied, and
interviews confirm, her diminution of time in office has increased the workload and
responsibility of those whom she supervises and who have additional work
responsibilities at GLCS. Secondarily, the tenor within the administrative office, by
various accounts, is one of tension and mistrust. Carol Balhorn, a supporter of the
Superintendent, has assumed performance review responsibility for some of the staff
and admits to spending an inordinate amount of time resolving disputes among her
office mates. It would be expected these responsibilities in a School District of similar
size would fall instead to the Superintendent, who is compensated for such coverage
and provides the requisite authority.
***
It should further be noted, as mentioned above, Superintendent Groening failed to get
written authorization for leave from the Board President. There is anecdotal evidence
to suggest she engaged in communication on occasion with Board members advising
them of requested leave, but her leave slips entered were conspicuously NOT

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 13

forwarded to the Board members for approval or concurrence, but instead signed off
by subordinates within the office.
As noted previously, it does appear that Superintendent Groening failed to properly notify the Board
President when taking personal leave, as required by her contract, on numerous occasions. Section 5
of Superintendent Groenings contract provides that All scheduling of vacation is subject to the
approval of the Board. Section 5 of Superintendent Groenings contract further provides that she was
required to notify the Board President of taking personal leave days. Further, there is a preponderance
of evidence that her frequent absences from the office have caused tension and a loss of trust among
staff and Board members.
We observe that the investigation has additionally raised significant questions regarding the proper
accounting of Ms. Groening's paid time off. During the investigation, Rehmann was able to identify
several systems utilized by employees to track Ms. Groening's use of time off. These systems (varying
from tracking sick slips, to emails, to a calendar tracking her whereabouts), identified numerous days
when Ms. Groening failed to come to work, or came to work late/left early due to personal
appointments. Ms. Groening's official District record does not account for many of the days she was
gone; thus leaving Ms. Groening with additional remaining paid time off.
Counsel continues to work to reconcile Ms. Groening's District record with witness testimony and
contemporaneous records. We remain concerned regarding the use of paid time off in light of Ms.
Groening's sale of "unused" personal leave time to the District (1 per pay period).
It is our recommendation that the Board consider severely curtailing paid time off in subsequent
contracts, and require its superintendent to perform their duties from the District whenever possible.
Improper Disclosures
During the independent investigation, concerns were raised that Superintendent Groening may have
improperly disclosed confidential matters through email. Rehmann opined that:
It should be noted Superintendent Groening sent an important email to her personal
MSN account on March 21, 2015 ( along with the two on March 19). Rehmann CIS
had no access to that MSN account and cannot offer an explanation or determine if
there were future intended recipients once she had access in that personal account.
There exists no logical explanation for her to utilize her personal, non-school
account, as she retains remote access on all occasions.
(Emphasis added.)

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 14

The emails were confidential attorney-client privileged information, subject to release only by the
Board of Education. A second review indicated further confidential emails forwarded by Ms. Groening
to her husband's personal account.15 Transfer of confidential emails to a personal account, especially
one belonging to a third-party, is concerning given the release of FERPA protected student address
information that occurred in 2009.
At that time the Board made changes to its policies to ensure that such an occurrence would not happen
again. Board Policy 5070 specifically provides that no employee shall engage in, or be a party to,
disclosure or release of confidential information, not otherwise available to members of the general
public, in advance of the time prescribed for the release; provided, however, that this provision shall
not prevent an employee from divulging or releasing confidential information regarding suspected
violations of the law.
Based upon documentation received from the District, it appears that then Superintendent Groening
forwarded a significant amount of District email to her husbands personal email address. The items
forwarded to her husbands email account included personnel information regarding administrator and
employee evaluations,16 policy discussions, and other items that should not be disclosed to a third party
absent a FOIA request, and sometimes not even then. Superintendent Groening forwarded District staff
phone numbers, which is extremely troubling given the previous incident involving the unauthorized
release of student addresses during 2009.
The items Superintendent Groening forwarded to her husbands personal email account included
District financial information. As discussed previously, the items forwarded included communications
subject to the attorney-client privilege. While Board Policies 1191 and 2745 require the Board to retain
an attorney, and authorize the Board President and Superintendent to contact the attorney regarding
legal matters concerning the District, neither policy authorizes the Superintendent to waive the
attorney-client privilege through the release of confidential communications. In our opinion, there is
evidence that Superintendent Groening improperly violated the attorney-client privilege by forwarding
the confidential materials to her husbands private email account.
More concerning, the items Superintendent Groening forwarded to her husbands personal email
account also included student information ACT scores, hours of volunteer work by student athletes,
scholarship information, etc. In many of the instances, we could not open attachments to determine
whether these documents included personally identifiable information contained in students education
records, which would be a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), or if
15

In the past, Ms. Groening has indicated this may be a shared account. Regardless, her use of this account subjected
confidential emails to scrutiny by at least one other person who had access to the account.
16

Counsel finds it troubling that Ms. Groening, after raising numerous concerns that the Board would release personnel records,
including evaluations, is the one to have released the information to an email account owned by a third-party.

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 15

they were merely aggregate data; nevertheless, their mere presence in a third-party's email is
concerning.
Finally, the documents Superintendent Groening forwarded to her husbands private email account also
included minutes of a closed session on at least two occasions. Section 7 of the Open Meetings Act
provides that the minutes of a closed session are to be kept by the Clerk, not be made available to the
public, and shall only be disclosed if required by a civil action alleging a violation of the Open Meetings
Act. In our opinion, there is a compelling argument that Superintendent Groening violated Section 7
of the Open Meetings Act by forwarding minutes of a closed session to her husbands private email
account.
Unlawful Public Expenditures
During the independent investigation records were obtained which led the investigators to believe that
public funds had been misused for private purposes. The Michigan Constitution places limits on the
expenditure of public funds. Article 9, Sec. 18 of the Michigan Constitution provides: The credit of
the state shall not be granted to, nor in aid of any person, association or corporation, public or private,
except as authorized in this constitution. The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that this
constitutional prohibition applies to all political subdivisions of the state. Black Marsh Drainage
District v Rowe, 350 Mich 470 (1958)). Therefore, any expenditure of school district funds is limited
by Article 9, Section 18 of the Michigan Constitution.
In interpreting this limitation, the Michigan Supreme Court has also ruled that a public body cannot
give away funds or other property even for a public purpose without express statutory authority. Sinas
v City of Lansing, 382 Mich 407 (1969). The Revised School Code grants the District broad authority.
MCL 380.11a. Nevertheless, the Revised School Code not only gives the District broad authority, it
also provides limitations on the authority of spending public funds.
Section 1216 of the Revised School Code provides that monies raised by tax shall not be used for a
purpose other than that for which it was raised without the consent of a majority of the school electors.
MCL 380.1216. In addition, Section 1814 of the Revised School Code provides in relevant part as
follows.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a person shall not use school
district funds or other public funds under the control of a school district for
purchasing alcoholic beverages, jewelry, gifts, fees for golf, or any item the purchase
or possession of which is illegal.
***

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 16

(3) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a person who knowingly or
intentionally violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by
imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine, or both.
According to documents provided by the District, Superintendent Groening authorized expenditures of
over Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000) of public funds to pay for gifts for staff. Use of public funds
to purchase gifts is a misuse of public funds in violation of the Revised School Code and the Michigan
Constitution.
Date
10/10/12
11/6/13
6/15/15

Expenditure
Amount

Reason

$3,350.14 Staff Appreciation Shirts

$3,690.02 Staff Appreciation Shirts
$3,969.99 Staff Appreciation Jackets

It is our belief that the three amounts listed above do not represent the totality of inappropriate
expenditures. We have reason to believe that other purchases were made by Ms. Groening, including,
but not limited to, the purchase of car blankets and logo cups as gifts. We are concerned that many
more thousands of dollars may have been inappropriately spent.
We also observe that, based upon documentation provided by the District, Superintendent Groening
authorized expenditures of approximately Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500) of public
funds on expenses, and waived building use charges of approximately Six Hundred Fifty Dollars
($650), for events held at the District that, while laudable, were not educational in nature, with such
expenditures not authorized by state law.
In our opinion, there appears to be a preponderance of evidence that Superintendent Groening used
public funds to purchase gifts in violation of Section 1814 of the Revised School Code. It is our further
opinion that there is a preponderance of evidence that Superintendent Groening violated Board Policy
2120 by failing to maintain efficient procedures and effective controls for all expenditures of school
funds.
It is important to note that over a decade ago, the Michigan Department of Treasury issued a document
entitled Determining Lawful Expenditures that provides helpful guidance to school businesses
officials, administrators, and board members. In this document, Treasury explained what expenditures
are considered lawful and which are considered unlawful. Given Superintendent Groenings prior
experience as a school business official, we believe that she should have been aware of both Section
1814 of the Revised School Code and the Treasury Departments guidance on determining lawful
expenditures.

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 17

We recommend that those in receipt of gifts paid for by public funds return or repay any and all gifts
received from Superintendent Groening, unless the individual knows for a fact that private, rather than
public, funds were used to purchase the gift. It is our further advice that the District emplace financial
controls to prevent similar future expenditures.
Hiring Practices
The investigation revealed that Superintendent Groening hired employees without formally obtaining
approval of the Board of Education. Information provided by the District indicates that Ms. Groening
lacked Board authority to hire employees without Board approval. In Michigan a superintendent lacks
authority, whether apparent or otherwise, to hire employees without Board authorization. Ms.
Groening's actions are ultra vires. Those individuals hired by Ms. Groening without Board approval
do not have valid employment contracts unless approved through Board action.
Records indicate that over Superintendent Groenings tenure, there have been 65 employees (including
a nurse, coaches, kitchen workers, aides, and bus drivers) who were not formally approved by the
Board of Education. Many are still employed, and it is our recommendation that the Board of
Education address the lack of Board approval immediately.
Conclusion
We are concerned regarding the lack of institutional controls under the former administration, including
the breadth of ostensible violations of Board policy, state and federal law, and the Michigan
Constitution, including what appear to be violations related to:

Failure by the former superintendent to require two building principals and the superintendent
to submit appropriate documentation for their respective credit card purchases within 5
calendar days as required by Board Policy 3605.
Using public funds to purchase gifts in violation of Section 1814 of the Revised School Code.
Violating Board Policy 2120 by failing to maintain efficient procedures and effective controls
for all expenditures of school funds.
Authorizing Assistant Principal ONeill to work more/varied days than permitted by her
employment contract, and thereby failed to follow the proper process in amending the
employment contract.
Directing the Superintendents subordinate staff to pay out the 24 personal leave days with her
regular bi-weekly payroll checks, rather than as a lump sum at the end of the year, in violation
of Section 5 of her Contract of Employment.
Violating Section 4.06.02 of the RIM and the Public Employees Retirement Act.

Glen Lake Community Schools Board

September 15, 2015
Page 18

Costing the District additional funds related to retirement payments.

Failing to seek or obtain prior approval from the Board President and/or for leave time as
required by the former superintendents employment contract.
Permitting two teachers to be paid for additional work at an amount that violated the Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
Permitting an administrator to continue to be employed as an assistant principal without
appropriate certification in violation of Section 1246 of the Revised School Code.
Permitting an individual to serve in a counseling role without proper certification in violation
of Section 1233 of the Revised School Code.
Violating Board Policy 5070, and possibly the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, by
forwarding confidential emails to her husbands private email account which included student
information.
Violating Section 7 of the Open Meetings Act by forwarding closed session minutes to her
husbands private email account.
Hiring numerous employees without proper Board approval.

Having provided our summary and legal analysis of the information garnered by the investigation, we
would close by noting that Glen Lake Community Schools remains a strong and viable school district.
We are aware of significant steps already taken by the Board to address the issues identified within the
investigative report, and commend Interim Superintendent Hartigan and his administrative staff for the
work they have performed
Should you have any questions or concerns with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,

Eric D. Delaporte
THRUN LAW FIRM, P.C.
EDD/bgk